appeals and the planning department as well as the permit holder that the property owner was not indicated on the permit. in january, on the last day of the deal, we finally heard about a permit that was issued with the same error and we were left with no option of the appeal for that permit. we have not been successful yet in terms of resolving and withdrawing that appeal. on april 18 we heard from scott sanchez by e-mail. he apologized for taking so long to get back to you. i finally had a chance to review the case and do not see any planning code issues with the project. he went on to explain why. i respect and accept that decision and i don t dispute him even though his view was inconsistent with what i understood and neighbors understood with the rear yard of 1380 greenwich. my comments tonight supplement our appeal brief whiched to be submitted on april 4. we feel this is relevant to your decision tonight. after the # 1969 plans were approved we signed an agreement with
asking you tonight to revoke a recent permit for construction on 1380 greenwich because the property owner is not identified on the permit, the kept of planning did not review and approve the permit application and we believe the very largel elevated deck encroaches on our 1877 rear lot cottage. these issues are related to building inspection and planning. we have worked with those departments to withdraw those appeals on exhibit d indicates since last november when we were asked to review a similar permit and we responded to the building department, the board of appeals and the planning department as well as the permit holder that the property owner was not indicated on the permit. in january, on the last day of the deal, we finally heard about a permit that was issued with the same error and we were left with no option of the appeal for that permit. we have not been successful yet in terms of resolving and withdrawing that appeal. on april 18 we heard from scott sanchez by
and approve the permit application and we believe the very largel elevated deck encroaches on our 1877 rear lot cottage. these issues are related to building inspection and planning. we have worked with those departments to withdraw those appeals on exhibit d indicates since last november when we were asked to review a similar permit and we responded to the building department, the board of appeals and the planning department as well as the permit holder that the property owner was not indicated on the permit. in january, on the last day of the deal, we finally heard about a permit that was issued with the same error and we were left with no option of the appeal for that permit. we have not been successful yet in terms of resolving and withdrawing that appeal. on april 18 we heard from scott sanchez by e-mail. he apologized for taking so long to get back to you. i finally had a chance to review the case and do not see any planning code issues with the project. he went on to e
lombardy property company. comply with notice of violation no. 0212001 replace existing walls per plans landscape deck. this is on for a hearing today. we ll ask the appellant to please step forward. you have seven minutes. good evening. my name is rod handling. in 1975 i purchased a building that had two flats and a small cottage as my home. i moved in and several years later i met my wife at our flat and we were married there and lived there until we moved a few blocks away to raise our family of kevin tert stan. we work with neighbor groups all the way back into the early 1980s on proposals for what is now 1380 greenwich. we are asking you tonight to revoke a recent permit for construction on 1380 greenwich because the property owner is not identified on the permit, the kept of planning did not review and approve the permit application and we believe the very largel elevated deck encroaches on our 1877 rear lot cottage. these issues are related to building inspection and
this and thought it was a reasonable application to look at the law and go back to the last legal use because the history here is so convoluted and we are going to go back to what s on the c f c. but a secondary argued that says in paragraph two, it refers to non-conforming uses if a principle service, then you can t go back in that location. part two is a vacant space for permitted conditional use and that deals with all the other, that s basically range use type you have, permitted uses, conditional uses and non-conforming uses. okay. thanks. mr. sanchez. you found the cfc in your records, how about the original permit app? let s see. i will look for that but i can if you will look at that during your break. other people who would like to speak under public comment. please raise your hand? okay, please step forward. good evening. my name is jeffrey regary. i live in the building next to the right. within 150 feet of that and the salami factory is a wine bar,